THIS WEEK, with crossparty support, I am presenting a Bill in Parliament to revive Young Apprenticeships, offering ambitious but not bookish 14 to 16-year-olds a nonacademic route to success.

Whether it is tackling truancy, boosting social mobility or plugging the skills gap, it's time to snub the snobbery that says youngsters must go to university to make something of themselves.

The coalition rightly scrapped Labour's arbitrary target for churning 50 per cent of youngsters through university.

As former Labour Minister Margaret Hodge lamented, this led to "Mickey Mouse courses" at mediocre institutions. For all the money that's gone into expanding university education, 30 per cent of graduates can't find a job within six months (a figure that has stayed stubborn for a decade).

We need the greater focus on academic rigour that Michael Gove is pioneering, while more investment is also going into apprenticeships and university technical colleges. Still, with the school leaving age rising to 18, there remains an elitist disdain for the vocational route.

The fact is that some children, regardless of background, are neither inspired nor motivated in the classroom. They need wider options.

And the absence of choice is particularly stark for those from lower-income households, who have less financial support. Likewise, none of the current workplace-based, vocational options target the age group that needs them the most.

In state schools, truancy rates spike by 75 per cent between 14 and 16 years old. We risk losing too many teenagers to the swelled ranks of NEETs (youngsters not in employment, education or training).

In 2004, Tony Blair set up Young Apprenticeships (YA) for 14 to 16-year-olds precisely to offer that choice.

The YA typically provided a two-year programme, combining GCSE English and Maths, optional subjects and the equivalent of two days per week experience in the workplace. YAs were popular: the numbers rose from 1,000 to 9,000 in just three years.

Ofsted praised the scheme for its strong personal development of students, high levels of motivation and attendance, and positive feedback from employers.

Research by the Department for Education found YAs could help keep disaffected youngsters in education, because they are more motivated by "hands-on" learning. Virtually all went into further education, full apprenticeships or a job.

The economic case for YAs is equally powerful. With a shrinking workforce sustaining a growing population, schemes that encourage youngsters into work with the right skills should be welcomed.

In reality, YAs were good value for money.

A recent survey by the Confederation of British Industry found that half of employers were deterred from hiring young people because of their lack of skills. Experience abroad, including in Australia, Germany and Switzerland, highlights the value of work-based training.

The UK's Commission for Employment and Skills describes skills "potholes" in the UK economy, with one in three vacancies for trades such as electricians, plumbers and chefs hard to fill because of skills shortages.

The vocational route shouldn't be viewed as some second-class alternative to joining the professions, not least since these trades can also serve as a springboard to setting up a profitable business.

Despite their proven success, Ed Balls wound down YAs as Education Secretary, swayed by elitist sniffiness, as well as their expense. True, YAs cost around £3,000 more per pupil per year than regular schooling.

Yet university technical colleges also cost substantially more, without offering the same degree of workbased training.

At their peak, YAs cost just under £30million more per year than current alternatives, a fraction of the education budget.

The £3,000 price tag also needs to be compared with the astronomical cost of dealing with NEETs which, according to research for the Audit Commission, has reached £56,000 per youngster.

In reality, YAs were good value for money.

The Conservatives should revive YAs as part of a broader drive to appeal to the British underdog, the self-starters from tougher backgrounds who are determined to make a success of themselves through hard work.

As for the cost, we could easily pay for YAs by scrapping the pointless Government Equalities Office. That would have the added virtue of sending out the clear message that we stand for the meritocratic, not politically correct, brand of social fairness.